Voters prefer Darling to Osborne in ICM poll

The latest ICM poll for tomorrow's Guardian puts the Conservatives 5% ahead; a much smaller lead than has been suggested in other recent polls.

Although just 26% of voters think that Alistair Darling is the best Chancellor of the contenders from the three main parties - that's better than George Osborne. 20% of voters pick Mr Osborne and despite insiders' esteem for Vince Cable, the LibDems' Treasury spokesman is on just 13%.

David Cameron, in contrast, has established a clear lead over Gordon Brown as preferred Prime Minister. He leads Mr Brown by 37% to 29%. Nick Clegg is best PM in the minds of 8% of ICM respondents.

That'll change. George Osborne will undoubtedly make a better Chancellor! Most of those surveyed will only have strong views on the best candidate for PM. Other cabinet positions are often no more than an afterthought.

I'm not surprised. Osborne's problems balancing his budget and his lack of conservative principles don't make him many friends. The only reasons he might get any votes is due to the problems with the other candidates.

Glad to see that Vince Nationalisation Cable is doing even worse!
For someone in a third party who isn't even the leader he has a remarkably high profile, Lembit Opik has celebrity, Nick Clegg and Chris Huhne actually are the invisible men, but Vincent Cable does command respect - whatever anyone thinks of him, he knows his mind and is consistent. He is way above all the rest of the Liberal Democrat MPs and is the one really formidable characters that the Liberal Democrats have.

Voters want someone with life experience in charge of the nation's finances: Howe, Lawson, Clarke fitted the bill. As did Howard as Shadow Chancellor. Rifkind would today. Osborne looks like a boy. He only did one good thing: cut inheritance tax and that was when his back was to the wall.

I wonder if Labour's increase is due to the fact that the majority of people have got some extra cash in their pockets due to the budget, despite the unfortunate shafted minority. Or, more likely, this poll is just cobblers.

I think it is because the economy is doing well. Rember the IMF predict we will not have a recession, whilst the USA will. Plus remember Thacther had two recessions. People have had a reality check. As a socialist I find it pretty depressing that the 10p issue seems to have increaed support for labour. It seems the public want the poor to pay higher taxes. I htink it is the job of the government and the opposition to argue why the poor need lower taxes.

I think it is because the economy is doing well. Rember the IMF predict we will not have a recession, whilst the USA will. Plus remember Thacther had two recessions. People have had a reality check. As a socialist I find it pretty depressing that the 10p issue seems to have increaed support for labour. It seems the public want the poor to pay higher taxes. I htink it is the job of the government and the opposition to argue why the poor need lower taxes.

Ideally, I'd like Hague to be Chancellor in the next Gov't, with Davis going to the FCO and Osborne to the Home Office. Osborne's chief problem is not in anything he's done; he simply looks too young and inexperienced to project an air of authority, whereas Darling carries a misleading air of middle-aged competence, even if it's been tarnished.

Come on, when it's a resounding endorsement for the home side it's pukka. When some ambiguity appears it's rigged. REALLY! As an undecided (one gets more right-wing as one gets older) I take my hat off to ConservativeHome. Of all the political blogs you tell it as it is, warts & all, and you are far & away the best. That can't be said about some of your contributers. Take an example from Iane Dale, definitely in the 'Dave' mould but sometimes tells it as it is, even through gritted teeth. Keep communicating.

Boy George you fail to convince anybody. You do not come over well at all and seem rather smarmy, not a good quality at all! Perhaps Dave should replace you with William Hague, a far better choice for Shadow Chancellor.

I think if anything the lack of interest in the three of them reflects a public disdain with the political handling of the economy. I suspect a lot of people feel that politicians create economic problems and never solve them - Brown is now seen to have betrayed the economy all along, and before that the Major years are seen as an economic disaster (most unfortunately ignore how they laid the foundation stones for much of the economic success Brown later laid claim to). The successes of Margaret Thatcher are a distant memory to those old enough to even remember them (and I'm not, for what it's worth).

So 41 per cent of people didn't express an opinion I assume. Which means this result is hardly very telling. It could be as simple as Labour voters being more likely to be loyal to Darling than Tories are to Osborne.

Just complete opposite to what we are hearing on the phones when calling postal voters. A number of people have mentioned looking at their wage slips only to see their tax shoot up and consequently we not Labour would be getting their vote in future.

George is very talented but inexperienced - and that shows. At the next election, even if the economy is in real trouble, the voters will look at who looks the safest (most reassuing pair of hands to see them through troubled waters.Its on that point that I worry. No problems with David Cameron as a Leader but I think an older pair of hands in charge of the nations finances would play better with the electorate. Not sure about Hague's resonance with the voters. Watchin BBC Parliament and the Treasuy Select Committee Michale Fallon comes over very well indeed.
We have had 2 mega opportunities to really blow this Govt out of the water - ie Nothern Rock and the 10p tax. On both of them I'm afraid we have not passed muster in terms of clarity - the principles we are basing our oppositiion on and credibility.
Having said that, any poll which says that Labou Voters are moe likely to turn out and vote at the moment than the Tories is surely highly suspect indeed. Just not credible.

I know that George Osborne has many supporters in his present role but it is not his youth that I see as his main drawback, it is quite simply that he doesn't seem to be on top of economic matters. He does not inspire confidence with figures. He is quite good at narrative but Vince Cable expresses more sense about the economy in two sentences than Osborne does in several paras.
The Lib Dems (i.e. Vince Cable) were onto the essential point of Brown's 10p abolition long before the tories woke up to it.
It is not as if we don't have better qualified people. We have several people who are impressive with figures and some, like John Redwood, who have had experience in business, who I think would give us much more confidence about running the economy.

But that depends on how you frame the debate, for if we have all this wonderful growth why are we in the financial mess we are? And if we keep on exceeding growth figures, why are the tax receipts coming in below expectation? Trouble is George Osborne has failed to frame any sort of debate, put down any sort of markers to hold this Government to account, or built up any sort of narrative, until very recently, which looks like band wagon jumping for the economic woes had become abundantly obvious to everybody and as such we didn't need GO to tell us about it, but he was needed a year or so ago to frame these debates, but had gone AWOL.

Osborne is a political liability and costing the party crucial support. He must be moved to a portfolio where he can do less damage. Michael Fallon would be a great appointment. He has the necessary intellect, experience, gravitas and charisma.

George Osborne has performed very badly over the past year and failed to score in front of so many open goals that he needs to be replaced on an urgent basis by a heavyweight like David Davis or William Hague.

He is failing to reach out to the majority of the electorate.

In any case ity is wrong to have three Etonians - David, George and Boris - in such high profile positions.Boris' performance in the London mayoral campaign has b nearly been as bad as Gerorge's but at least people know who Boris is.

Actually, I thought Osborne might be in the cupboard.
He should be replaced by Michael Fallon or Dominic Grieve.
The LDs are doing poorly, but the fact that Vince Cable is regularly called on to give an economic opposition view instead of our spokesman is extremely serious.

What do we expect of Osborne when he is overloaded with duties other than being the Shadow Chancellor?

He needs to cut out all other work and focus on his brief. Osborne may like having his finger in a wide range of pies but he is under-performing as the Shadow Chancellor against one of the least respected Chancellor's in living memory.

Hey, one of my favourite polls is next week. As for the economy, real people are hurting very, very badly. The UK is an economic basket case of debt and increasing poverty, with real hardship biting everywhere. As for The Guardian, just as much in denial as Liebour and Brown.
Next week there is a poll. Still, whatever the results might show, they cannot begin to match the opinion pollsters.
Geezer at 06.31 gets my support. Give us three weeks of positive for us and damaging for The Socialist Republic of Britain, polls (even Populus)and as if by magic, a great poll for The Guardian. Please...........

I'd love to see William Hague as shadow chancellor as he would make "Yes" Darling and McBrown look even more incompetent. Osborne is doing a good job, but he looks so pale on TV - there is something of the night about him!

John Redwood as Shadow Chancellor. Really some of you are totally off the planet. He would get slaughtered. Five minutes in the job and he would be promising tax cuts and all that would happen would be out of the bottle jumps the genie of Tory Cuts again.
Redwood is a man of the past and the longer he stays there the better!

The last time I recall Labour being this despised by so many people - including traditionally Labour voters - was the year Margaret Thatcher won her first election.
Labour got 36.7% of the vote, at over 11 million votes it was actually a similar total number of votes to what they got in the two 1974 General Elections and more votes than they got in 1983, 1987, 2001 and 2005 - I rather suspect Gordon Brown would be delighted with the same total numbers supporting him as then because the other two main parties actually aren't much liked either which is the only reason Labour has been in government since 1997.

I should add that as an ordinary party member (albeit an economics graduate and chartered accountant) , I feel far better versed in business, finance and economics than George. Obviously, Fallon for Chancellor.

George Osborne is useless. He doesn't do anything for Cameron either, who needs something different than another hectoring public school chump (sorry to be an inverted snob, but that is clearly what the public thinks of them as) who reflects his worst failings rather than compensating for them. Hague should do it. Or better still someone older and wiser.

It's the inheritance tax; that's why he's being kept on. I doubt it was even his idea. The man is voting booth poisin.

"I should add that as an ordinary party member (albeit an economics graduate and chartered accountant) , I feel far better versed in business, finance and economics than George. Obviously, Fallon for Chancellor."

It amazes me that after all Osborne's hard work, and more importantly strategically important work in both the Treasury and for the wider Conservative party you still whinge on about him in such a negative way!
We get this list of the alternatives, none of whom have anywhere near the politically astute record of Osborne.
If Cameron is the biggest asset we have, then Osborne is his nearest rival in the Shadow Cabinet. How soon we forget that Mrs Thatcher would have been written off simple for being a woman not long before she was elected. Some cannot see what is in front of their noses.

I beg to differ, I think he cuts the mustard a damn more effectively than any other Shadow Chancellor we have had in the last 11 years.
More importantly, if we manage to have a Chancellor in No11 rather than one of the good old boys sitting in the Shadow Chancellors post spouting the usual rhetoric, then Osborne can deservedly take some of the credit for that.
He has one thing that has been so sadly lacking in our shadow cabinet for a long time, and that is a passion to put a Conservative government back into office.

Doesn't cut it! What an incredible empty statement which simple means that he is not one of our sort in some kind of politically exclusive golf club!